I was so interested in hearing everyone else's opinions that it didn't occur to me for a long time that I could answer the questions too. Fun fun fun fun!

• If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.

As someone pointed out, this is a false dichotomy. I don't know the answer if I had to pick one, because while humanity is the obvious choice, it surreptitiously suggests a questionable economic world order.

• Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified.

Foreign policy is not my bag (then again, neither is economics), but this is one of those crappy absolute questions that is technically true if there are any possible examples. If the international law is unjust, then it would seem the right thing to do is break it. Unjust international laws are easily conceivable.

• People are ultimately divided more by class than by nationality.

I always said yes to this back in the day to be a good socialist, but I don't think it's true. I can talk to and relate to people across classes, and I do every day. But even in cases where you can cross the language barrier, the customs and mores of outside cultures can easily be alien to me.

• Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment.

I usually guess no to this, but I don't know.

• "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a fundamentally good idea.

I am a person of considerable need, so the theory sounds nice. But I think the problem is how to determine ability and need and distribute it effectively. It sounds like it would be a command economy by definition, and I understand that's never worked.

• It's a sad reflection on our society that something as basic as drinking water is now a bottled, branded consumer product.

Another one of those good socialist questions for me, but when I think about it, I don't honestly feel this way. Maybe I'm just jaded, though.

• Land shouldn't be a commodity to be bought and sold.

Same as above. Not sure what other system one would have in mind.

• It is regrettable that many personal fortunes are made by people who simply manipulate money and contribute nothing to their society.

Don't kill me guys but I have no idea what these finance type people even do. I read /u/say_wot_again's response a few minutes ago, and apparently there's a legitimate argument for this sentiment. I doubt these people are total leeches though, so I at least lump the tone of this question in with the past several melodramatic socialist questions.

• Protectionism is sometimes necessary in trade.

This question annoys me, because my complete feelings about free trade are "The overwhelming expert consensus is that it's good, and I believe it." But you get anti-free trade credit if you think there are ANY justifications for protectionism. I don't know, maybe it's that absolute, but I feel like there's SOME cases in which protectionism is a good idea.

• The rich are too highly taxed.

I have no idea honestly. I doubt it.

• Those with the ability to pay should have the right to higher standards of medical care.

Not a health care economist, but I feel like there should be a minimum level of health care everyone should get. The reality of limiting everyone to that probably would play out badly.

• Governments should penalise businesses that mislead the public.

Obviously. But I kept this one to see if there were any interesting arguments against.

• Taxpayers should not be expected to prop up any theatres or museums that cannot survive on a commercial basis.

Theatres no, but I feel investing in museums to an extent would be good.

• The prime function of schooling should be to equip the future generation to find jobs.

Prime, probably. Sole? Obviously not.

• Those who are able to work, and refuse the opportunity, should not expect society's support.

Everyone should get SOME support. Right? I mean come on.

• When you are troubled, it's better not to think about it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things.

I think this is one of those weird questions they put in for misguided reasons. Probably not a lot of test-retest reliability when it comes to me on this one. I would say yes, focus on cheerful things.

• No broadcasting institution, however independent its content, should receive public funding.

I love NPR and public radio. How can you say no?

• Abstract art that doesn't represent anything shouldn't be considered art at all.

I kept this to see if anyone would go on a rant about abstract art being bullshit. Another one of those misguided questions though tbh. I think art is flexible in definition to say the least, but personally I think it's not a highly exclusive term. I think TV shows are art in a way, or at least there is art to them.

• The businessperson and the manufacturer are more important than the writer and the artist.

Probably more fundamental.

• Multinational companies are unethically exploiting the plant genetic resources of developing countries.

I don't know. Maybe?

• Charity is better than social security as a means of helping the genuinely disadvantaged.

I'm genuinely disadvantaged. I don't need the arbitrary whims of collective feels to drum up a ribbon for my cause, I need institutionalized societal support.